That's a good point. Dispite all the so called character growth now characters essentially stay the same or are reset periodically anyway. At least back then they didn't have to worry as much with continuity etc. The stories were good/fun and self contained. If you didn't like it, just move on the next story. Simpler times.
It's definitely my favorite origin story, although as previously mentioned they don't quite stick the landing, and I also had some issues with Pa Kent.
I get what they were going for, and Pa's misunderstanding of the situation (thinking Superman was a replacement identity, not an additional one) was great, but the execution was a bit off imo.
They don't grow. It's just that every writers tends to write them differently. The idea that superheroes that are appearing monthly can really "grow" in a plausible matter is just an illusion. It's an insane thing to think. To be honest, you wouldn't even want it.A reset button every 20+ years is not the same as a reset button every issue. Characters grow in modern comics; it just happens at a slow rate. But at least it happens.
They do grow. Over the course of the entire Post-Crisis era, for instance, Lois Lane grew and evolved as a character. I'd also appreciate you not deciding for me or anyone else what we might want from a comic. I do expect and want at least some character growth and continuity in my comics even if it is a slow process. Even over the course of the New 52 thus far, characters like Superman and Lois have evolved from their beginnings in their first chronological appearance in Action Comics #0. The past does influence the present and the future, in other words. And it should. If a hero like Superman cannot be shown to learn from experiences and mistakes or to deal with emotional experiences in a plausible way, then comics and the characters they contain are shallow, hallow creatures indeed.They don't grow. It's just that every writers tends to write them differently. The idea that superheroes that are appearing monthly can really "grow" in a plausible matter is just an illusion. It's an insane thing to think. To be honest, you wouldn't even want it.
How do you think that's going to look? Superman from 1938 to this day... it wouldn't even be realistic to grow that much since real people don't really change.
Last edited by Van Cleaf; 12-18-2012 at 02:19 PM.
People change in response to the events in their lives and as a result of growing up. A Superman who is just beginning his career as a hero in Metropolis should be written differently than a Superman who is five years or ten years into his career. He should be more mature, be wiser, and have developed more complex relationships with the people in his life. When the character has learned and grown as much as seems necessary -- when all stories of based off a particular incarnation of a character dry up -- start over. Tell the story again with the essence of the past embedded in the new myth yet with adaptations that accommodate the social, cultural, and other interests of contemporary audiences.How do you think that's going to look? Superman from 1938 to this day... it wouldn't even be realistic to grow that much since real people don't really change.
Maybe JMS had the same idea all along, I don't know but based on interviews he doesn't really reference New Krypton as the reason he decided that Superman needs to walk just that Superman has spent too much time disconnected from the common man etc.
Here's the interview:
Last edited by Daybreak_st; 12-19-2012 at 07:55 AM.
I know that the story line was connected specifically by the replacement writer. My whole point is that once a comic switches writers often the natural development of a character is changed or even stifled because the next writer switches gears in a favor of a completely different story etc. I feel like that's what happened with Grounded. Over in Supergirl we got to see her natural reaction to what happened, it provided some genuine character growth. With Superman there's this complete switch in focus, some woman slaps him and goes off walking across America?! From internal story logic it made no sense to me. It was motivated by external factors like JMS' personal view of how to make the character relevant again. External factors like those will always be the deciding factor for if a character undergoes genuine growth or is simply reset for the next writer to tell his story arc.